Laserfiche WebLink
background. I believe that the condition that they are proposing would potentially bring that to <br /> fruition, kind of what the CRC was feeling was lacking on that, so I believe it would do that. <br /> Based on the previous approval that was done, I do feel like we are comfortable moving forward <br /> with that. And again, the CIA is not standard for all SMAS. <br /> VITOUSEK: Not always, but the, you know, the Ka Pa`akai analysis of the SMA is bare <br /> minimum standard, correct? <br /> KERN: Correct. <br /> VITOUSEK: Okay. Would, you know, with the existing CIA that was reviewed by the Cultural <br /> Resources Commission and determined to be in their opinion inadequate, from 2006, right? The <br /> document was prepared in 2006. And in the testimony, you stated that there has been no change <br /> on the property. How do we know that there has been no change if there is no evaluation of <br /> current cultural practices on the area? <br /> VAN BERGEN: Can you define change? You mean cultural practice changes or like <br /> VITOUSEK: Right— <br /> VAN <br /> ightVAN BERGEN: geographical changes? <br /> VITOUSEK: what the I believe Mr. Arai said was that nothing has changed since the initial <br /> assessment regarding any—and my take on that is meaning that the conditions on the property, <br /> the use of the property, the traditional cultural practices on the property, remain the same now in <br /> 2022 as they did in 2006. That's my assumption. Is that correct? <br /> ARAI: Yeah, basically. Let me frame it this way, the biological report did not find any <br /> endangered species, plants, and animal. The Cultural Impact Assessment did not specifically <br /> identify any resource within the property that provided, you know, like for gathering right— <br /> VITOUSEK: <br /> ightVITOUSEK: No, I believe that they did <br /> ARAI: cultural practice <br /> VITOUSEK: I believe that in the Cultural Impact Assessment, they did identify cultural <br /> resources that are valued that can be utilized for traditional religious purposes, but they didn't <br /> identify whether there was any activity taking place on a property. <br /> ARAI: Yeah, on the property, correct, that's correct— <br /> VITOUSEK: <br /> orrectVITOUSEK: Yeah. <br /> ARAI: —sorry if I misspoke, but, yes, that is correct. And with that being said, and then <br /> obviously later the property, when was it, 2018, the property has been grubbed since then, so, <br /> with the exception of areas like where the burial sites are located, so <br /> 14 <br /> EXHIBIT G <br />